Edit, Orginally posted to "Feedback", moved by Moderator.
"Mass is a Force."
In simplist terms the standard equation of F=ma should apparantly be the equation F=ma. F, a and now m are bold in the equation because they're all vector quantities. Newton's three Laws of Motion need some rethinking.
"A Torus is made up of helicies."
In geometry a Torus is made up of a circle(s) revolving in a coplaner axis to the circle(s). If the Torus is a solid than the Torus is defined with a disk(s) instead of a circle. In Topology a Ring Torus is still defined as the product of two circles. In the multiple iterations of what's considered to be a Torus I can't find a Torus being defined by or with helicies. An ignorant man needs his information.
"The ignorant man needs his information."
So much for the scientific method. Develop an hypothesis and then create the information or data as needed to support the hypothesis. If someone for any reason doesn't accept an hypothesis or theory, being reasoned and applying critical thinking isn't required to develop a counter hypothesis or theory. Just rationalize what's required to support an objective.
I read an article a couple of years ago about a group of archaeologists, some with stellar reputations, that are (were) looting and destroying sites from antiquity. The sites offended their sensibilities. They had their reasons for doing what they were that allowed them to rationalize what they were doing. As they were doing this though they still considered themselves to be archaeologists and maybe even better ones. Even though what they were doing was the antithesis of archaeology, their belief in "The ignorant man needs his information," allowed them to justify their actions by rejecting the inconvienent information.
More examples are available but why is it no one has challanged these statements? What do the moderators do? Is this an abusive question?
"Mass is a Force."
In simplist terms the standard equation of F=ma should apparantly be the equation F=ma. F, a and now m are bold in the equation because they're all vector quantities. Newton's three Laws of Motion need some rethinking.
"A Torus is made up of helicies."
In geometry a Torus is made up of a circle(s) revolving in a coplaner axis to the circle(s). If the Torus is a solid than the Torus is defined with a disk(s) instead of a circle. In Topology a Ring Torus is still defined as the product of two circles. In the multiple iterations of what's considered to be a Torus I can't find a Torus being defined by or with helicies. An ignorant man needs his information.
"The ignorant man needs his information."
So much for the scientific method. Develop an hypothesis and then create the information or data as needed to support the hypothesis. If someone for any reason doesn't accept an hypothesis or theory, being reasoned and applying critical thinking isn't required to develop a counter hypothesis or theory. Just rationalize what's required to support an objective.
I read an article a couple of years ago about a group of archaeologists, some with stellar reputations, that are (were) looting and destroying sites from antiquity. The sites offended their sensibilities. They had their reasons for doing what they were that allowed them to rationalize what they were doing. As they were doing this though they still considered themselves to be archaeologists and maybe even better ones. Even though what they were doing was the antithesis of archaeology, their belief in "The ignorant man needs his information," allowed them to justify their actions by rejecting the inconvienent information.
More examples are available but why is it no one has challanged these statements? What do the moderators do? Is this an abusive question?
Last edited: